HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.739 of 2023
Santanu Debbarma
Son of Late Manomohan Debbarma,
resident of Sankar Chowmuhanni, Krishnanagar,
PO-Agartala, PS-West Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
------ Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary
to the GA (P&T) Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO-Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO-Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department
(Establishment Section), Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO-Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Under Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO-Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
------ Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv,
Mr. K. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G. A.
Date of hearing : 13.12.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 18.12.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
Page 2 of 16
. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
HON’BLE MR
Judgment & Order
By filing this writ petition, the present petitioner has sought
for the following reliefs:
i) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one
of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus
and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
mandating/directing them to revoke/rescind the impugned
Letter dated 20.03.2021 & the impugned Letter dated
11.04.2022 (Annexures-2 & 4 respectively supra);
ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one
of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus
and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
mandating/directing them to grant one notional annual
increment, for completion of one full year of service (w.e.f.
01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019), and thereupon, modify the PPO
of the Petitioner in tune therewith, revise the pensionary
benefits and monthly pension, and make payment of the
arrears thereof, including all other consequential benefits
flowing therefrom;
iii) Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ Petition;
iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule
absolute in terms of (i) & (ii) above;
v) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding
vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon’ble High Court may
deem fit and proper;
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted
by Learned Counsel Mr. K. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A. Mr. D. Sarma
appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was initially an employee of the Excise Department, Government of
Tripura and while serving in the said department in the year 1991,
Page 3 of 16
the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the Tripura Civil
Service and in course of his employment, he served in the post of
Additional Secretary, Tripura Civil Service (Senior Selection Grade),
Government of Tripura and on attaining superannuation, the
petitioner proceeded to retirement on 30.06.2019. According to the
petitioner, as per Rule 11 of the Tripura State Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, all the Government employees are
entitled to receive their respective yearly annual increments on the
st
uniform date of 1 July, every year and accordingly, the petitioner
st
used to get his yearly annual increment on the 1 day of July of
every year but on promulgation of Tripura State Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 vide Rule 11 thereof, the said rule was
modified to the extent that increment in respect of an employee
appointed/promoted/granted financial up-gradation including
nd st
MACPs, during the period between the 2 day of January and 1
st
day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on the 1 day of
January of the following year and the increment in respect of an
employee appointed/promoted/granted financial up-gradation
nd
including MACPs, during the period between the 2 day of July and
st st
1 day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted on the 1 day of
July of the following year, hedged by a rider that an employee can
st
be allowed to avail his normal increment on 1 day of July subject
to exercise of option. And accordingly, the petitioner continued to
receive his yearly annual increment upto 01.07.2018 and the same
Page 4 of 16
was his last increment, as granted by the respondents. But the
petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2019.
4. It was further submitted that having served for the period
with effect from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019, the petitioner was duly
entitled to receive his yearly annual increment for the said period
but the respondents did not grant the same to the petitioner and as
a result of which, the pensionary benefits and monthly pension of
the petitioner were settled and paid, excluding the said last unpaid
increment.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved submitted a representation
requesting the Joint Secretary, GA (P&T) Department, Government
of Tripura, to release his said yearly annual increment for his
service rendered with effect from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019
(Annexure-1).
6. In response to his said representation, the Deputy
Secretary, Department of Finance (Establishment Section),
Government of Tripura by a letter bearing reference No.F.5(28)-
Fin(E)/91 dated 20.03.2021 rejected the said claim of the
petitioner on the purported premise that he was not on duty on the
st
1 day of July, 2019 (Annexure-2).
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide No.WP(C)
No.316 of 2021 before this High Court and this High Court by a
judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure-3) disposed of the
said writ petition with the following observation:
“15. Thus, the respondents are directed to take up this
exercise whether the yearly increment can be released
one day before the day on considering completion of
Page 5 of 16
one year of service as required. The State Government
in the Finance Department shall take up such exercise
and give their decision taking all relevant considerations
including the judgments of the Madras High Court and
the Delhi High Court within a period of three months
from the date of receiving a copy of this order. The
release of the increment and its assimilation with the
last pay would depend on such decision.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed
of.”
8. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Tripura issued an office Order dated 11.04.2022
disallowed the claim of the petitioner (Annexure-4).
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in view of the
judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by the
Division Bench of Hon’ble
Madras High Court in WP No.15732 of 2017 [P. Ayyamperumal Vs.
The Registrar, CAT & Others] (Annexure-5), the petitioner is entitled
to get one notional increment for the service rendered by him.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that challenging the
judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the respondents
preferred one SLP before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which
was numbered as
SLP(C) No.22283 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure-6) was pleased to
dismiss the said SLP filed by the respondents. Thus, the judgment
dated 15.09.2017 delivered by Madras High Court attained
Hon’ble
finality.
10. Learned Senior Counsel in course of his hearing again drawn
the attention of this Court that the similar subject matter was raised
Civil Appeal No.2471 of
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in
2023 (@ SLP(C) No.6185/2020) [The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL
and Others
Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.] and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court again by judgment dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-7) reported in
Page 6 of 16
2023 SCC Online SC 401 also laid down certain guidelines and
affirmed that a Government servant supreannuated on the earlier day
of his date of increment shall be entitled to get the increment from
the Department provided if he renders his service with good behavior
and efficiently.
11. Lastly, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that from the facts
and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the respondents have
deprived the petitioner of his legitimate entitlement of one annual
increment (for the period from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019). As a result
of which the pensionary benefits and monthly pension of the
petitioner have been decreased. The impugned communication dated
20.03.2021 and the impugned letter dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure-2
and 4) and non-consideration of annual increment had resulted in
gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner granted
under Articles 14, 16 and 300A of the Constitution of India for which
the present petitioner has sought for redress of the Court by this writ
petition.
12. The State-respondents have contested the case by filing
counter affidavit denying the assertions of the petitioner in the writ
petition and it is further submitted that in the light of provisions of the
fundamental rules like 9(21), 9(6), 17(1), 22, 26(a) and 56(a) Rule
5(2) of the adopted Pension Rules and provisions of ROP Rules 2017,
a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay and is
also entitled to draw the annual increment as long as such
Government servant discharges duties of the post but such
Government servant may not be entitled to draw the pay and the
Page 7 of 16
increment on the date after his retirement, as he ceases to discharge
those duties to a post. It was further submitted that as per FR 17 read
with FR 24 and FR 26, annual increment is given to a Government
servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances
attached to the post but if such Government servant ceases to
discharge his duties by reason of attainment of the age of
superannuation, he will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances
and such employee be not entitled to any increment if it falls due after
the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or
sometime thereafter.
Finally, the State respondents took the plea that last pay slip
of the petitioner was issued with respect to 01.07.2018 and in this
case, the petitioner had already become a pensioner on 01.07.2019.
So, a pensioner cannot be allowed an increment. Hence, by the
counter affidavit, the State-respondents prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
13. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that in view of the judgment of the Madras High
Hon’ble
Court which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court later on and
subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the
present petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit as ordered
in the said case being a Government servant as he sincerely
discharged his duties on that relevant point of time and with efficiency
also.
14. On the other hand, in course of hearing Learned Addl. G.A.,
Mr. D. Sarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondents referring
Page 8 of 16
the aforesaid rules of FR drawn the attention of the Court that those
citations are not applicable in this present case because those cases
were related to Central Government employees not related to the
State Government employees and in this case, the present petitioner
was a servant under the Government of Tripura and those principles
of law laid down cannot be applied in this case and furthermore, the
aforesaid provisions of the FR at on the day of
’s are very much clear th
annual increment, the present petitioner was not on duty. So, he was
not discharging any duty as such he was not entitled to get any
increment and the Finance Department, Government of Tripura rightly
disallowed the claim of the petitioner.
15. I have heard detailed arguments of both the sides and gone
through the relevant annexures submitted by the petitioner annexed
with the writ petition and also the citations referred by the petitioner
here in this case. There is no dispute on record that on the day of
retirement, the petitioner was holding the post of Additional
Secretary, Tripura State Civil Services (SSG). He went on
superannuation/retirement on 30.06.2019 and he was given the last
increment on 01.07.2018 but as the present petitioner went on
retirement on 30.06.2019 so treating him that on 01.07.2019 he was
not on duty, his claim was disallowed. Now, here in this writ petition,
the crux question is whether the present petitioner is entitled to get
vision Bench of Madras High
the benefit as prayed for. Hon’ble Di
Court in the said case bearing No.WP. No.15732 of 2017 in para
No.7 came to the observation that the petitioner of the said case
completed one year full service on 30.06.2013 but the increment fell
Page 9 of 16
due on 01.07.2013 on which date he was not on service but by the
ed
said judgment, Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court direct
the State-respondents to pay one notional increment for the period
from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013 as he completed one full year of
service though his increment fell due on 01.07.2013 for the purpose
of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. The relevant
portion of the said judgment runs as follows:
“6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on
30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on
01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on
30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the
petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to
Government, Finance Department and others v.
M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525,
was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012,
wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.
No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the
employee, by observing that the employee had
completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to
31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of
increment which accrued to him during that period.
7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year
service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on
01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In
view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he
has to be treated as having completed one full year of
service, though the date of increment falls on the next
day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the
present case, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal
dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be
given one notional increment for the period from
01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full
year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013,
for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any
other purpose. No costs.”
16.
The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in SLP Diary No.22283 of 2018 and the
3.07.2018 dismissed the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 2
Special Leave petition. The operative portion of the said order runs as
follows:
“Delay Condoned.
On the facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras.
Page 10 of 16
The special leave petition is dismissed.”
17. f
Similar issue was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court o
India in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 (@ SLP(C)
No.6185/2020)
wherein the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.4193/2017 was challenged
dated
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the said judgment
11.04.2023 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 was pleased to
dismiss the appeal preferred by the State-appellants. In para Nos.18
to 21 of the said judgment
, the Hon’ble Apex Court elaborately
discussed the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the
judgments referred by some other High Courts in Delhi High Court in
the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C)
No.10509/2019 dated 23.01.2020); the Allahabad High Court in the
case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ A
No.13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun
Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (Writ Petition
No.17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021) although the Full Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court and
Kerala High Court took a contrary view. The relevant portion of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 runs as
follows:
“18. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment has accrued on the
next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a
case where an employee has earned the increment one
day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the
day on which the increment is accrued is concerned,
while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and
purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be
Page 11 of 16
considered. A government servant is granted the annual
increment on the basis of his good conduct while
rendering one year service. Increments are given
annually to officers with good conduct unless such
increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or
linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is
earned for rendering service with good conduct in a
year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a
government servant has rendered service for a specified
period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled
to the annual increment and it can be said that he has
earned the annual increment for rendering the specified
period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such,
he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on
the eventuality of having served for a specified period
(one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely
because, the government servant has retired on the
very next day, how can he be denied the annual
increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for
rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently
in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh
(supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High
Court has observed and held as under:-
“Payment of salary and increment to a central
government servant is regulated by the provisions of
F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn
monthly by a central government servant and
includes the increment. A plain composite reading of
applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that
annual increment is given to a government servant
to enable him to discharge duties of the post and
that pay and allowances are also attached to the
post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive
appointment to mean an appointment wherein the
pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an
officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical
increments from a minimum to a maximum. The
increment in case of progressive appointment is
specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that
increment accrues from the date following that on
which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively,
clearly suggests that appointment of a central
government servant is a progressive appointment
and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to
maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of
CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the
day following which it is earned. This increment is
not a matter of course but is dependent upon good
conduct of the central government servant. It is,
therefore, apparent that central government
employee earns increment on the basis of his good
conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of
annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an
integral part of progressive appointment and accrues
from the day following which it is earned.”
(para 23)
“Annual increment though is attached to the post &
becomes payable on a day following which it is
earned but the day on which increment accrues or
becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative.
In the statutory scheme governing progressive
appointment increment becomes due for the services
rendered over a year by the government servant
subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central
government servant rises, by periodical increments,
from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed
Page 12 of 16
scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore
crystallises when the government servant completes
requisite length of service with good conduct and
becomes payable on the succeeding day.”
(para 24)
“In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of
day succeeding the date of entitlement has no
intelligible differentia nor any object is to be
achieved by it. The central government servant
retiring on 30th June has already completed a year
of service and the increment has been earned
provided his conduct was good. It would thus be
wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the
central government employee on the basis of his
good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground
that he was not in employment on the succeeding
day when increment became payable.”
“In the case of a government servant retiring on
30th of June the next day on which increment falls
due/becomes payable looses significance and must
give way to the right of the government servant to
receive increment due to satisfactory services of a
year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner
that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme
for payment of increment would have to be read as
whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be
read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part
particularly when the other part creates right in the
central government servant to receive increment.
This would ensure that scheme of progressive
appointment remains intact and the rights earned by
a government servant remains protected and are not
denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.”
19. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay
Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has
observed and held in paragraph 24 as under:—
“24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive
a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be
arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only
reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out
from the scheme is that the central government
servant is not holding the post on the day when the
increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid
ground for denying increment since the day following
the date on which increment is earned only serves
the purpose of ensuring completion of a year’s
service with good conduct and no other purpose can
be culled out for it. The concept of day following
which the increment is earned has otherwise no
purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it
serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of
entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any
object is to be achieved by it. The central
government servant retiring on 30th June has
already completed a year of service and the
increment has been earned provided his conduct was
good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the
increment earned by the central government
employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year
is denied only on the ground that he was not in
employment on the succeeding day when increment
became payable. In the case of a government
servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on
which increment falls due/becomes payable looses
significance and must give way to the right of the
Page 13 of 16
government servant to receive increment due to
satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is
not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of
reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of
increment would have to be read as whole and one
part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation
so as to frustrate the other part particularly when
the other part creates right in the central
government servant to receive increment. This would
ensure that scheme of progressive appointment
remains intact and the rights earned by a
government servant remains protected and are not
denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.”
20. Similar view has also been expressed by different
High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the
Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and
the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to
interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the
manner in which the appellants have understood and/or
interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a
government servant the benefit of annual increment
which he has already earned while rendering specified
period of service with good conduct and efficiently in
the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person
for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the
increment can be withheld only by way of punishment
or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any
interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or
unreasonableness should be avoided. If the
interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants
and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would
tantamount to denying a government servant the
annual increment which he has earned for the services
he has rendered over a year subject to his good
behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment
therefore crystallises when the government servant
completes requisite length of service with good conduct
and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In the
present case the word “accrue” should be understood
liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding
day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and
unreasonableness and denying a government servant
legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to
for rendering the services over a year with good
behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow
interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the Madras High
Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi
High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh
(supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High
Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra);
and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh
Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the
contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-
General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of
the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v.
Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on
22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the
case of Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP
No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
Page 14 of 16
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly
directed the appellants to grant one annual increment
which the original writ petitioners earned on the last
day of their service for rendering their services
preceding one year from the date of retirement with
good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of
the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present
appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
18. In course of hearing, Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. D. Sarma
submitted that the cases referred by the present petitioner in the
given case are different and those cases were relevant in respect of
Central Government employees not in respect of State Government
employees because in P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, CAT &
Others (Annexure-5), the governing rule was Central Civil Service
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and in the instant case, the governing rule
was Tripura State Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. But it is the
settled position of law that after promulgation of every Central revised
pay rules, the same are adopted by the respective States and in the
same manner, the State of Tripura also adopted the Central Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in the name and style of the
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 with slight
modification. Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 and Rule 11 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2009 are almost similar and identical applicable to Central
and State Government employees respectively which prescribes that
all the Government employees are entitled to receive their respective
st
yearly annual increment on the uniform date of 1 July, every year
and basing upon the same rule, the Hon’ble Madras High Court
Page 15 of 16
considered the case of the petitioner and granted one yearly
increment accrued on the date of his retirement.
19. From the principles
of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it appears that a Government servant is granted the annual
increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year
service. Increments are given annually to the officers with good
conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of
punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is
earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified
period. The moment a Government servant rendered service for a
specified period with good conduct in a time scale is entitled to the
annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual
increment for rendering the specified period of service with good
conduct and therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of annual
increment on the eventuality of having served for a specific period of
one year with good conduct efficiently. In such a situation, there was
no scope to deny the annual increment which the employee/servant
earned/is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and
efficiently.
20. Here in the given case, there is no evidence on record that
there was any adverse remark/misconduct by the petitioner during
the period the petitioner served in the department. Situated thus,
taking the plea by the State-respondents that the said principle of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be applied in the present
case on the ground that the facts of that case are not similarly
situated with the facts of the present case and any contrary view
Page 16 of 16
would lead to the arbitrariness and denying a Government servant his
legitimate right of annual increment which the employees entitled for
rendering in the services over a year with good behavior and
efficiency. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it appears that the State-respondent authority without any basis
rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that on 01.07.2019 he was
not on duty and as such, the stand taken by the state-respondent
that the present petitioner is not entitled to any annual increment
which he earned for serving the period with effect from 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019 cannot be legally sustained.
21. In the result, the writ petition filed by the present petitioner is
hereby allowed. The memorandum dated 20.09.2021 and subsequent
communication dated 11.04.2022 (Annexures-2 & 4) accordingly
stands set aside. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment
for the period from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019 as he has completed
one full year of service though his increment fell due on 01.07.2019
i.e. on the next day of his retirement, for the purpose of pensionary
benefits only. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
no order is passed as to costs.
With this observation, this writ petition is thus allowed.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA
Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA
Date: 2024.12.19 16:47:33 -08'00'
Deepshikha